Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AENT Errors
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:We really don't need to revisit this whole supposed "plagiarism".
How many times are you going to say this and still chime in time after time. Let you actions speak louder than words. If you do not want to speak on the subject of Roth lying about using Younan's and Murdock's translations as an underlying text for his version then simply set the example you wish for others to follow. So far you've always chimed in and say quit a bit. Anyway I already told you just because you do not think it should be brought up here and there does not mean I agree with you and anytime I see someone bringing up the subject I will not shy away. Anyway I would not have took the time to say all of the following if it where not for you replying on this subject, when you say we should not mention this subject any further that just prolongs it. But hey its all good if you want to join in on the subject about how Roth Lied/Lies about using Younan's and Murdock's translations as base texts, but if you are I suggest that you stop saying that we should not do so. Or if you become convicted to never say another word on the subject that good as well. May you have shalom either way.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:When I read the AENT introduction I get the impression that he used them as base texts and cross checked the Aramaic to make any updates he saw fit.
I have read the stuff on his website and have watched videos where Roth is being interviewed and he said that he did not do as you are impressed but he claimed that he only used it to consult with as well as other English translations of the Aramaic renewed Covenant along with the Aramaic PeshittA. So out of Roth's own mouth I heard him say that he did not use any translation as a base text. But as anyone can see in three of the documents I posted Roth clearly did use Younan's and Murdock'd translations as base text.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:When I look at the actual text I can see where he missed cross checking the Aramaic,
Durrr. that is one of the points I have been trying to make all along that he did not do a word for word translation as he claims.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:and I also see evidence of how he actually did not use a simple word processor replacement as is typical of Sacred Name Bibles (otherwise some words would not be as they were).
I never said that Roth did not actually make a point to change things here and there, so yes after he ran the word processor he also in certain places changed stuff, and probably caught some stuff upon proof reading. But not every mistake the word processor made as evidence shows in his version.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Of course, you would need to own an AENT and have read the entire thing to find all of these instances,
Like I said before The documents that I made up on Roth's plagerism I used the sample texts of the AENT provided by Roth. Of course it is not the lastest edition but it is a copy of the AENT and it clearly shows that Roth used these other translations as a base text all the while he said he didn't. This means he lied. This is the problem that I was pointing out. The fact that he used them as a base text does not bother me at all, but the fact that he is going around lying about it does. But have no fear I will live through it and I am sure Roth will too. And although I do not own a whole editions nor have any sample from the latest edition did not not stop me from browsing through a friend's 4th Edition at the Feast of Tabernacles this year. And yes there are still error in it! I also have two other people I email back and forth about Roth's version in which I proof the references in the document which you questioned.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:and also to see that some of your copying and pasting without referencing from this forum to form this document is actually now incorrect in subsequent editions.
If you read the document closely you would see where it speaks of mistranslations in the fourth, third, and first editions. So your point here is mute. Just because he fixed some stuff in later editions does not mean that they are wrong in the earlier editions, and people with the older ones should know this information.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:But this thread is about AENT errors. Not the use of other people's public domain texts, nor of theology. Let's stick to discussing the Aramaic and it's translation as presented in this volume's current printing.
ScorpioSniper2 started this thread and he mentioned the subject people having a problem with Roth having used Younan's and Murdock's translations as a base text and I felt that he should know as well as any new comers that it is not the fact that he used these translations as a base text but the fact that he lied about doing so. I did not bring up the subject but the one whom started this thread did, so if you want to dog somebody for doing so you need to redirect your comments toward him. But remember it is his thread. As for sticking with the current translation the document "Roth Mistranslations" has stuff in it that applies to the fourth edition as well as stuff in some of the earlier ones. Again it is all relevant to those whom have those editions.

By the way the more people sending Roth the mistakes he and the word processor made perhaps the sooner Roth will be able to get an accurate version put forth.
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I still prefer Roth's as a literal translation (I love how it reads).

I too like how the revisions that Roth has made in his version read, and happen to agree with much of his theology (about 90%+) though not all. I do not agree with him at all that just because the wording in any particular verse (such as Acts 2:36) does not line-up with our understanding is any reason to change the text around to read as we think it should. It's one thing to take liberty when translating difficult verses, but all together different when one chooses to do so on clear cut verses (talk about honesty). Anyway something I like to do is use white-out tape and re-pen the correct wording in the Translations (or versions) I have.
Interesting to note though is that while there are... I think a total of 4 (some of which have been corrected; and I'll let you guys know about the 5th edition in about a week) instances where Elohim/Alaha and Master YHWH/Marya or Mar/Mari/Maran were confused with one another, we do have to realize that this is not very much at all. What I mean is, the AENT can technically be classified as a "Sacred Name Bible" (it fits the bill) but every single other Sacred Name Bible (with the exception of maybe Trimm) takes very great liberties in translating these terms. You will see the Divine Name pop up in all sorts of places that it was never written. And then you will see those claiming to translate the Peshitta who don't follow the Marya rule at all but just pick and choose with no ryhme or reason where they put the Divine Name. Some will use the excuse that they're merely paraphrasing, but still.

So while it's good to pinpoint these instances (especially because Roth does want to be accurate with them) relative to other Sacred Name Bibles he has really done a pretty good job. Relative to other Peshitta translations though, I'd say he's not as clean as Magiera and second in line. Although he's more literal and I prefer him on a general basis, but I always use Magiera within my studies and translation work (plus, I love her companion resources which you can also use with Bible Works for even quicker study).
I completely agree with your assessment. His translation is sometimes so literal that the English doesn't flow clearly (check out his translation of Jesus' prayer in John 17, I can't remember the exact place). The Magiera and Bauscher versions read very smoothly, they are literal translations but they don't read like it.
Yes, with just a little white-out tape and a black ball-point pen one could fix these 90 or better of Roth's version and end up with a good version. I hope to get one of his Editions with the least problems so I can fix it up real quick. I also use two of Magiera's translations (strait Eastern PeshittA and the Messianic one). Neither of them are perfect but they do well especially being I can double check them against Younan's, and Bauscher's Interlinear, along with Norton, Murdock, Etheridge, Bauscher, as well as The Testimony of Yeshua Gabriel Bible, and Trimm's HRV. Trimm's is alright except he did not stick with the Eastern PeshittA any where in particular so I use it for the OT for the most part.

I do not have them all yet and Roth's version is defiantly one I wish to obtain, along with Magiera's Interlinear as well as her version with Jesus Christ wording in it as it has way more foot notes that the others Yeshue and Yeshua ones of her's. Plus I would like the Way International Interlinear to add to the collection so that I can consult them all as this is normally the best way to study from a language other than the originals, plus I like to read every bodies footnotes as they always have something good to add.

Anyway no matter which version of Roth's one may have they will need to know where to white-out and re-pen to keep from having to pay another $60. Most can barely afford to pay that once let alone two or three or four or five, etc... times just to get one that may or may not be much different.

As for the Eastern PeshittA in Aramaic and English may it long live <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> .
The Texas RAT Wrote:Yes, with just a little white-out tape and a black ball-point pen one could fix these 90 or better of Roth's version and end up with a good version.
Lol, are you saying there are 90 errors in AENT?

Anyway, the white out and ball point pen is actually a good idea. In my 1st edition I used a pigment liner pen, but not white out. I just scratched and wrote things in the margins. I'm replacing my first edition with my 5th edition for study and reading though, so I will probably do this in that.

If you want an AENT for cheap, they have a regular sized softcover edition for 40 bucks, and there still might be time to get a $15 discount too (use the coupon code AENTADVANCE15).
My bad <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush --> , I meant to say 90% of the errors, which ain't much more than a handful to start with, can be fixed in no time at all with the white-out tape and pen. As you said many other version would take months and roll after roll of white-out tape to correct and at least two pens. I hate it when they get a phrase wrong because usually one can not re-pen the correct phrase in the space. But no I was really trying to say less than 10 or so things need to be corrected for a top notch version of the Eastern PeshittA into English, most of which are just one word corrections.

Hope your emails to Roth have his sixth Edition 100% if not actually this coming fifth edition <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: --> .
The Texas RAT Wrote:Hope your emails to Roth have his sixth Edition 100% if not actually this coming fifth edition <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: --> .
Ohhh, 90%. Right. Anyway, yes, that would be awesome! I'll let you know if the feedback I gave for the fifth (which was good, but I could have said more) was inputted and then begin to dissect the rest of the text <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
I really hope this 5th edition corrects at least some of the issues we have mentioned on here.
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I really hope this 5th edition corrects at least some of the issues we have mentioned on here.
Well, what we've discussed so far isn't part of the feedback I gave, so I couldn't really tell you. Hopefully... it all depends on where his focus was for this edition. I like how every printing they do they continue to make it better though. I know the NASB was like this too starting in 1960 until they finally had it satisfactory/complete in 1977 (with one last big update in 1995). So, with much less people working on it, I can definitely give AENT some slack <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->
I still think the NASB and the YLT are the best translations of the Hebrew and Greek Bible. I would certainly use the NASB to preach if it wasn't for the KJV-onlyists that are in my church. I find it best to try to avoid offending people if it can be avoided.
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I still think the NASB and the YLT are the best translations of the Hebrew and Greek Bible. I would certainly use the NASB to preach if it wasn't for the KJV-onlyists that are in my church. I find it best to try to avoid offending people if it can be avoided.
Agreed, the NASB is my favorite for both Hebrew and Greek translation (Andrew Roth agrees on this one too). I don't have any KJV-Only folks in my community, so NASB is my choice when it comes to preaching. Although when it's finished, I may occasionally switch to the Tree of Life Bible (a Messianic peer reviewed translation of the MT and NA27).

Anyway, I love using the NASB for Greek comparison with the AENT. Often they read very similar.
I've gotten to where I'm so disgusted with King James Onlyism that I can hardly stand using the King James Version <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: -->
If I end up pastoring my own church, I'll probably preach out of the NASB. I'm a Greek primacist, but I could probably see myself preaching out of Peshitta translations too! I just love the Peshitta! <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: -->

Hey Brothers...

One major thing that I don't like with the new editions of the AENT, (I have the 1st Edition) errors fixed or not, is that Andrew has stopped using The Aramaic Script and replaced it with a Hebrew script. And while there are some who believe that's how the original Aramaic Scriptures looked like, that were 1st used in the Aramaic speaking/writing Church of the East... based on the evidence seen from as early as 6 A.D. I don't believe so.

The Aramaic letters back then look closer to the letters seen in the Khabouris and other older eastern Aramaic NT's like The Yonan Codex, than the modern Hebrew script does. Also, The Gospels that were seen in the Church of the East in Baghdad, was said to be written in "Edessian" letters, and which was dated 78 A.D. Edessian script is not Hebrew script, as far as I know.

David Bauscher has done the same thing, which to me, makes it less than The Peshitta NT...if not in content, in the way it looks and feels. I say, long live the Estrangela script and long live the Eastern Peshitta, as it is, and always has been. No need to change a thing about it, to make it more "Hebrew".

Speaking of this awesome Estangela Script...I have just ordered The Way International's 3 volume Interlinear (thanks Otto for the tip) as well as their Aramaic New Testament in un-pointed Estrangela script, their Aramaic NT concordance, English Dictionary supplement...and Jennings Aramaic/English Lexicon, all which are numbered with the Interlinear's, which ties them all together. I bought these study materials from Janet Magiera, and the Interlinear's directly from The Way International.

Janet told me that the source text used by TWI, is not the UBS critical text, but from other Aramaic source texts, which I am curios to learn about and compare their readings to The Khabouris and the UBS text. It seems certain that Janet used The Way International's three volume Interlinear NT edition and helps, as the model for her three volume interlinear NT and helps, but hers being from the UBS critical text, which are also all numbered like them (Strong?s like) as well. The Way International's editions came out in the mid-1980s and have not been revised as far as I know.

It doesn't look like either TWI or Magiera, are interested in producing a future Aramaic/English OT, so looks like we will have to wait for Bauscher?s, and Roth's editions in the coming well as The Official Church of the East's Aramaic Bible, which I assume will be both NT & OT. ...and until then we have the Lamsa version to study.

Another thing that bugs me about the AENT, is that Andrew seems to want to make The Real Aramaic Peshitta NT, be as "Hebrew" as he can make it. Not just with the script, but with many of the text's words, like "Elohim" rather than "Alaha", and "Y'shua haMashiyach" rather than "Eshu M'shikha", and "The Ruach haKodesh" rather than "The Rukha d'Qudsha"...and "Master YHWH" rather than "MarYa", or "MarYah". Now, I wouldn't be bothered by these terms if they were in an English version of a Hebrew NT, but there is no Hebrew NT...Not originally, like The Aramaic NT.

So, to me, Roth's version is truly in his own image, which is what he wants it to read and look like, but what it really doesn?t read or look like. It's weird to me, and is like he just wants things to be as "Hebrew" looking and sounding as he can make it.

It is what it is, and for those who feel that this is "better"? then enjoy it I guess...But to me, it?s NOT The Peshitta really, but rather The Hebreshitta.


LOL I like the new word you coined. I also prefer the Syriac terminology like the Magiera Messianic version and the Etheridge translation uses. I have yet to see a translation that uses "Eshu" (unless you count Alexander's "Eashoa"). I am not sure if I'll get the Alexander New Testament...Also, don't you think it'd be a good idea for Roth to make his translation 100% Eastern Peshitta by changing the reading in Matthew 21:4? It'd be the first purely Peshitta translation. By the way, Brother, tell us if TWI sticks with the Eastern or Western readings, if you don't mind!

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)